'Open Carry' Law Contoversy: Gun Owner Cited

[jillio]

and this one in PA - Sunset Hill Shooting Range and Bullet Hole Shooting Sports and Indoor Range - Belleville, NJ in NJ

the fact that you did not know about this is the reason why you are very ill-informed about this issue especially about CCW holders and what you are doing right now is a case of intellectual dishonesty.

Boy, you are reaching! Just because I didn't know about a vacation spot in the Pokonos, I am ill informed regarding fatalities associated with guns?

Intellectual dishonesty? You are a joke. Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty means? I think not, because you unwittingly engage in it all the time. Face it, you've run out of anything on which to base your position, and are now grabbing things out of thin air in an attempt to divert that fact.

 

[Reba]

I don't attempt to determine people's needs. Carry a concealed weapon can hardly be considered a "need" unless you are in a position that includes great risk of being attacked. Carrying a concealed weapon is more of a "want" than a "need" as has been shown here in this thread.

That's what I mean. How do you know what any other person's security needs are?

But I'll ask you the same question, but in regard to sexual orientation or religion.

Did we switch threads? Can we discuss religion now?

The right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The right to worship is in the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is no right to orient sex in the Constitution.

You are free to express your opinion about guns, of course, just as I am free to express my opinion about other topics.

You can't supersede any laws that allow gun ownership or use. Neither can I supersede any laws that allow religions to be practiced or sex to be oriented.

 

[jillio]

I've never had to give out my credit cards to friends or family. Nor would I unless it's an emergency.

Exactly. Not a co-worker so she/he could bring me a little lunch. But that $5 I have in my wallet might stay there for 2 months before I ever use it. If someone needs to take it from me, they are more than welcome to it. I will calmly hand it over. They quite obviously need it more than I do. If this society as a whole was more concerned with others, we wouldn't have the crime rate we do.

 

[Jiro]

I am saying that you should not be carrying a weapon in public unless you are in a position that puts you at great risk of harm.

Given some of the things you say in the gun threads, I don't think YOU should ever be allowed to carry a gun in a public area.

wow...... which one is it? It's ok for me to carrying concealed gun if I am in a position that puts me at great risk of harm or I should be prohibited from carrying gun in public for any reason?????

What exactly do you want me to comment on? I don't think I've let many posts go by in this thread without commenting on them.:roll: I commented on the OP and everything thereafter.

well you haven't commented on any of my posts that I posted articles in it.

what's the matter? is it because I have concrete facts and you don't?

 

[Jiro]

Boy, you are reaching! Just because I didn't know about a vacation spot in the Pokonos, I am ill informed regarding fatalities associated with guns?

um..... let's not lie in here, shall we? you did know that we can rent gun.

Intellectual dishonesty? You are a joke. Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty means? I think not, because you unwittingly engage in it all the time. Face it, you've run out of anything on which to base your position, and are now grabbing things out of thin air in an attempt to divert that fact.

so exactly which part did I lie about?

Ladies and Gentlemen - did I ever lie in this thread?

 

[Reba]

If I had a cash only business, I would keep my cash in a locked small vault on the way to the bank. That also would be the only reason why I'd be carrying cash at all. I rarely carry more than 20 dollars in cash and often I don't carry cash at all.

When I worked at a downtown movie theater after high school, after the last evening show and accounting, I would make the nightly deposit at the bank. It was about a block away, I carried the cash and checks in a money bag, and this was about 11 p.m. I would get an armed patrolman to walk with me.

 

[jillio]

That's what I mean. How do you know what any other person's security needs are?


Did we switch threads? Can we discuss religion now?

The right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The right to worship is in the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is no right to orient sex in the Constitution.

You are free to express your opinion about guns, of course, just as I am free to express my opinion about other topics.

You can't supersede any laws that allow gun ownership or use. Neither can I supersede any laws that allow religions to be practiced or sex to be oriented.

To be perfectly honest with you, so many absurd justifications for carrying a gun, and so many ridiculous comparisons have been made, that I'm not sure what the topic has evolved into. I just found it a bit odd that you would question me determining someone's needs when you appear to do just that on other topics. I was just wondering if the rules on determining needs for another applied across the board or only to a few and only regarding select topics.

Nope, we aren't allowed to discuss religion. That is why I find it odd that you continually use it as reasoning in several different topics, yet remind others that we aren't allowed to discuss religion when the questioning becomes uncomfortable for you.

We have laws regarding sexual orientation? How do you pass a law governing sexual orientation?

I can't supercede them, but I can certainly influence a change in the laws. Which I attempt to do on a regular basis.

 

[Reba]

...and FYI - # of CCW holders is less than # of gun owners..... nowhere close....

You're right. Many gun owners are long-gun or non-concealable gun owners.

 

[TXgolfer]

and this one in PA - Sunset Hill Shooting Range and Bullet Hole Shooting Sports and Indoor Range - Belleville, NJ in NJ

the fact that you did not know about this is the reason why you are very ill-informed about this issue especially about CCW holders and what you are doing right now is a case of intellectual dishonesty.

It seems to be a pattern

 

[Jiro]

I can't supercede them, but I can certainly influence a change in the laws. Which I attempt to do on a regular basis.

so please do correct me if I'm wrong. You are hoping to influence a change in the laws that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons in public except those whose duties justify it such as off-duty police and security guards?

I expect you to say something like "also except those who ABSOLUTELY needs it" so please do give more examples of who would ABSOLUTELY needs it for what reason?

rape victim? abuse victim? who exactly?

 

[Reba]

To be perfectly honest with you, so many absurd justifications for carrying a gun, and so many ridiculous comparisons have been made, that I'm not sure what the topic has evolved into. I just found it a bit odd that you would question me determining someone's needs when you appear to do just that on other topics. I was just wondering if the rules on determining needs for another applied across the board or only to a few and only regarding select topics.

The Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners. They don't have to prove a "need" that you imply. That's the difference. You post as though it was required for gun owners to prove or justify themselves. Legally, there is no requirement.

Nope, we aren't allowed to discuss religion. That is why I find it odd that you continually use it as reasoning in several different topics, yet remind others that we aren't allowed to discuss religion when the questioning becomes uncomfortable for you.

I don't use religion as a legal basis for anything. I obey the laws of the USA and my state. I can use religion to make moral arguments, and for explaining why I view things a certain way. I don't try to use religion to go against the Constitution. I can vote my beliefs. However, the right to bear arms is not up for a vote.

We have laws regarding sexual orientation? How do you pass a law governing sexual orientation?

No, we don't. That's why I don't understand why you include that in a discussion about guns and the law.

I can't supercede them, but I can certainly influence a change in the laws. Which I attempt to do on a regular basis.

Are you saying that you want to do away with the Second Amendment?

 

[jillio]

The Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners. They don't have to prove a "need" that you imply. That's the difference. You post as though it was required for gun owners to prove or justify themselves. Legally, there is no requirement.


I don't use religion as a legal basis for anything. I obey the laws of the USA and my state. I can use religion to make moral arguments, and for explaining why I view things a certain way. I don't try to use religion to go against the Constitution. I can vote my beliefs. However, the right to bear arms is not up for a vote.


No, we don't. That's why I don't understand why you include that in a discussion about guns and the law.


Are you saying that you want to do away with the Second Amendment?

Private citizens do a great job of misinterpreting the intent of the Second Amendment. At the same time, they try to deny First Amendment rights to others.

I have First Amendment rights; but there is a qualification. I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if there is not a fire. Why is that? To prevent possible harm and/or injury to others. Same thing with carrying a gun unrestricted in public areas.

Why do you keep asking me what I am saying? I say it, you read it, there it is. That is what I said. Accept it and stop trying to read other things into it so you can somehow make something that wasn't there.

 

[Jiro]

Private citizens do a great job of misinterpreting the intent of the Second Amendment. At the same time, they try to deny First Amendment rights to others.

I have First Amendment rights; but there is a qualification. I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if there is not a fire. Why is that? To prevent possible harm and/or injury to others. Same thing with carrying a gun unrestricted in public areas.

Why do you keep asking me what I am saying? I say it, you read it, there it is. That is what I said. Accept it and stop trying to read other things into it so you can somehow make something that wasn't there.

unrestricted? that's another intellectual dishonesty. you know very well that it is restricted in public areas. it is UNRESTRICTED in only 2 states in America

 

[jillio]

unrestricted? that's another intellectual dishonesty. you know very well that it is restricted in public areas. it is UNRESTRICTED in only 2 states in America

That is not intellectual dishonesty. Have you been hanging out with Koko? That is the same thing he used to say anytime something was posted to dispute his claims. You yourself, as well as another poster, have listed what it takes to get a CCW. There are very few places where a CCW holder cannot legally have their weapon. Restrictions are few. And there need to be far more, including more restrictions on who can actually legally carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Jiro]

That is not intellectual dishonesty. Have you been hanging out with Koko? That is the same thing he used to say anytime something was posted to dispute his claims. You yourself, as well as another poster, have listed what it takes to get a CCW. There are very few places where a CCW holder cannot legally have their weapon.

"few"? Looking at most of state laws.... it's certainly not few at all. It is not allowed at government buildings, schools, any establishments that have "NO GUN ALLOWED" sign, and probably some more that I can't recall.

Restrictions are few. And there need to be far more, including more restrictions on who can actually legally carry a concealed weapon.

that's fine. that's your opinion and I disagree. but you haven't answered my question in Post #810 unless you have chose to not respond to it.

 

[jillio]

"few"? Looking at most of state laws.... it's certainly not few at all. It is not allowed at government buildings, schools, or any establishments that have "NO GUN ALLOWED" sign.


that's fine. that's your opinion and I disagree. but you haven't answered my question in Post #810 unless you have chose to not respond to it.

We wouldn't have to have any environmental restrictions if the restrictions were at the level of the CCW.

I answered it. You chose not to accept my answer.

 

[Jiro]

We wouldn't have to have any environmental restrictions if the restrictions were at the level of the CCW.

so you get to compare environmental restriction and CCW restriction and I can't with driver license and firearm license?

I answered it. You chose not to accept my answer.

Just because you answered it doesn't mean it's an answer.

You are hoping to influence a change in the laws that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons in public except those whose duties justify it such as off-duty police and security guards?

that is what you stated previously. Am I correct?

 

[jillio]

so you get to compare environmental restriction and CCW restriction and I can't with driver license and firearm license?


Just because you answered it doesn't mean it's an answer.



that is what you stated previously. Am I correct?

Environmental restrictions and CCW are both involving guns. A driver's license has nothing to do with guns.

Yes, it is an answer because it was provided as an answer. Your problem is that it isn't the answer you want.

That isn't a quote from me. You better check it again.

 

[Jiro]

Environmental restrictions and CCW are both involving guns. A driver's license has nothing to do with guns.

Environmental Restrictions involving guns? such as?

Do you know how you can purchase a gun in 40+ states? You need a driver license. Let me guess..... you didn't know that either?

 

[Jiro]

That isn't a quote from me. You better check it again.

but is my interpretation of your belief correct? if not - which part is wrong?